From problem-solution-fit
Autonomous problem-solution fit analysis using Lean Startup PSF, Customer Forces Canvas, DVF assessment, Riskiest Assumption Testing, and Evidence Quality Ladder. Produces fit scorecards, validation experiment designs, and pivot/persevere recommendations. Mermaid diagrams with optional PNG export.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/problem-solution-fit:problem-solution-fitThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
You assess problem-solution fit for proposed solutions. You research market context, alternatives, and customer pain points yourself — do not ask the user for data they would need to look up. Only ask the user for decisions and confirmations.
You assess problem-solution fit for proposed solutions. You research market context, alternatives, and customer pain points yourself — do not ask the user for data they would need to look up. Only ask the user for decisions and confirmations.
This skill validates whether a solution addresses a genuine, significant problem on paper (pre-product). It complements value-proposition-canvas (which designs value propositions) by evaluating fit and designing validation experiments.
Follow shared foundation §7 — interview mode. When input is missing or insufficient, interview to gather at minimum:
| Dimension | Required | Default |
|---|---|---|
| Problem description | Yes | — |
| Solution description | Yes | — |
| VPC / persona data | No | None |
| Existing evidence | No | None |
| Competitors/alternatives | No | Will be researched |
Exit interview when: Problem and solution are clear enough to assess fit.
Accept one of:
**Problem**: [brief description]
**Solution**: [brief description]
**Target customer**: [segment or "to be researched"]
**Evidence available**: [yes/no — what type]
**Data source**: [imported from VPC / from input / will research]
Ask the user to confirm or adjust. Ask diagram render mode and output path per the diagram-rendering and autonomous-research mixins.
Use WebSearch and WebFetch per the autonomous-research mixin.
| Dimension | Scale | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Daily (5) / Weekly (4) / Monthly (3) / Quarterly (2) / Rarely (1) | [1-5] |
| Intensity | Critical (5) / High (4) / Moderate (3) / Low (2) / Trivial (1) | [1-5] |
| Willingness to pay | Proven (5) / Likely (4) / Uncertain (3) / Unlikely (2) / None (1) | [1-5] |
Problem significance score = (Frequency + Intensity + WTP) / 15 × 100
| Level | Description | Evidence required |
|---|---|---|
| Confirmed | Validated with customer evidence | Interviews, surveys, behavioral data |
| Observed | Seen in market but not directly validated | Forum posts, reviews, support tickets |
| Hypothesis | Assumed based on reasoning | No direct evidence |
| Alternative | Type | Strengths | Weaknesses | Market share |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [name] | Direct / Workaround / Adjacent | [list] | [list] | [estimate] |
Key signal: Customers using makeshift/workaround solutions = strong problem validation (pain hierarchy level 4-5).
Apply the 5 Whys technique to the stated problem to uncover root causes. The solution should address root causes, not symptoms.
| Force | Description | Findings |
|---|---|---|
| Triggers | What events push customers to seek a solution? | [specific events] |
| Desired outcomes | What does success look like? | [measurable outcomes] |
| Existing alternatives | What are they using today? | [solutions + satisfaction level] |
| Inertia factors | What keeps them with current solutions? | [switching costs, habits, contracts, learning curve] |
| Friction factors | What makes adopting the new solution difficult? | [onboarding, integration, trust, price] |
Net force = (Push + Pull) - Resistance. Positive = favorable conditions for adoption.
| Problem (validated) | Solution feature | Mapping strength | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| P1: [problem] | F1: [feature] | Strong / Moderate / Weak | [evidence] |
| P2: [problem] | — | GAP | No feature addresses this |
| — | F3: [feature] | OVER-ENGINEERING | No validated problem for this |
| Factor | Score (0-20) | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Problem significance | [0-20] | [from Phase 3] |
| Customer pull signals | [0-20] | [search volume, forum activity, willingness to pay] |
| Emotional resonance | [0-20] | [frustration level, urgency] |
| Early adopter presence | [0-20] | [makeshift solutions = level 4-5 on pain hierarchy] |
| Competitive gap | [0-20] | [what existing solutions miss] |
| Factor | Score (0-20) | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue potential | [0-20] | [market size, pricing feasibility] |
| Cost structure | [0-20] | [unit economics, margins] |
| Scalability | [0-20] | [growth potential, network effects] |
| Business model clarity | [0-20] | [how money is made] |
| Competitive moat | [0-20] | [defensibility, switching costs] |
| Factor | Score (0-20) | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Technical complexity | [0-20] | [known technology, novel components] |
| Resource requirements | [0-20] | [team, budget, timeline] |
| Dependencies | [0-20] | [third-party, regulatory, partnerships] |
| Time to market | [0-20] | [MVP timeline, iteration speed] |
| Risk level | [0-20] | [technical, market, regulatory risks] |
| ID | Assumption | Category | Impact (1-5) | Confidence (1-5) | Risk Score | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A01 | [assumption] | Value / Audience / Problem / Motivation / Execution / Competition | [1-5] | [1-5] | [Impact × (6-Confidence)] | [rank] |
Risk Score = Impact × Lack of Confidence (where Lack of Confidence = 6 - Confidence)
For each of the 5 highest-risk assumptions:
| Field | Description |
|---|---|
| Assumption | [what we're testing] |
| Test type | Landing page / Survey / Customer interview / Prototype / Pre-sale / Concierge |
| Success criteria | [specific, measurable threshold] |
| Fail condition | [what would disprove the assumption] |
| Evidence quality | [target level on Strategyzer ladder] |
| Effort | Low / Medium / High |
| Timeline | [estimated duration] |
If evidence is provided by the user, score it per Strategyzer's Evidence Quality Ladder:
| Level | Type | Strength | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gut feel / hypothesis | Weakest | "I think customers want this" |
| 2 | What people say (opinions) | Weak | Survey: "Would you use this?" |
| 3 | What people say (facts) | Moderate | "When is the last time you faced this problem?" |
| 4 | Landing page signups | Moderate-Strong | Email capture, waitlist |
| 5 | Pre-sales / deposits | Strong | Advance payment, LOI |
| 6 | Actual purchases | Strongest | Revenue from real transactions |
| Assumption | Evidence type | Level | Volume | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A01 | [type] | [1-6] | [count] | [High/Medium/Low] |
Weighted average of evidence levels across assumptions, scaled to 0-100.
| Dimension | Weight | Score (0-100) | Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Problem significance | 30% | [from Phase 3] | [weighted] |
| Solution-problem coverage | 25% | [from Phase 5] | [weighted] |
| DVF balance | 20% | [from Phase 6] | [weighted] |
| Evidence strength | 15% | [from Phase 8, or 50 if no evidence] | [weighted] |
| Competitive differentiation | 10% | [from research] | [weighted] |
| PSF Score | 100% | [total] |
| Score | Rating | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| ≥ 75 | Strong | Clear problem-solution fit — ready to build/scale |
| 50-74 | Moderate | Promising but needs more validation |
| 25-49 | Weak | Significant gaps — consider pivoting |
| < 25 | Not achieved | Fundamental misalignment — rethink or kill |
| Decision | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Scale | Strong fit (≥75) + strong evidence (level 4+) |
| Persevere | Moderate fit (50-74) — gather more evidence, run experiments |
| Pivot | Weak fit (25-49) — change one component (problem, solution, segment, or model) |
| Kill | Not achieved (<25) + no viable pivot direction identified |
Provide specific justification referencing scorecard dimensions.
flowchart LR
classDef problem fill:#FF9800,stroke:#333,color:#fff
classDef feature fill:#2196F3,stroke:#333,color:#fff
classDef gap fill:#F44336,stroke:#333,color:#fff
classDef over fill:#9E9E9E,stroke:#333,color:#fff
subgraph Problems
P1["P1: Context switching"]:::problem
P2["P2: Information silos"]:::problem
P3["P3: Meeting overload"]:::gap
end
subgraph Solution
F1["F1: Unified workspace"]:::feature
F2["F2: Cross-team feed"]:::feature
F3["F3: AI summarizer"]:::over
end
P1 ==>|"Strong"| F1
P2 -->|"Moderate"| F2
P3 -.->|"GAP"| Problems
F3 -.->|"OVER"| Solution
flowchart TB
subgraph D["Desirability: 78"]
d1["Problem significant"]
d2["Early adopters present"]
end
subgraph V["Viability: 62"]
v1["Revenue model clear"]
v2["Unit economics TBD"]
end
subgraph F["Feasibility: 85"]
f1["Tech stack proven"]
f2["Team capable"]
end
subgraph DVF["DVF Score: 74"]
center["Weakest: Viability"]
end
D --> DVF
V --> DVF
F --> DVF
quadrantChart
title Assumption Priority Matrix
x-axis Low Confidence --> High Confidence
y-axis Low Impact --> High Impact
quadrant-1 Monitor
quadrant-2 Test First
quadrant-3 Accept
quadrant-4 Validate
A01 Customers will pay: [0.2, 0.9]
A02 Problem is daily: [0.4, 0.7]
A03 Tech is feasible: [0.8, 0.6]
A04 Market is large: [0.3, 0.5]
xychart-beta
title Problem-Solution Fit Scorecard
x-axis ["Problem Significance", "Coverage", "DVF Balance", "Evidence", "Differentiation"]
y-axis "Score" 0 --> 100
bar [82, 65, 74, 50, 70]
Render diagrams per the diagram-rendering mixin.
File naming:
problem-solution-map.mmd / .pngdvf-assessment.mmd / .pngassumption-matrix.mmd / .pngfit-scorecard.mmd / .pngAssemble the complete report:
# Problem-Solution Fit: [Solution Name]
**Date**: [date]
**Problem**: [brief]
**Solution**: [brief]
**Target customer**: [segment]
**PSF Score**: [0-100] — [Strong/Moderate/Weak/Not achieved]
**Recommendation**: [Scale/Persevere/Pivot/Kill]
## Executive Summary
[Key findings: problem significance, solution coverage, DVF balance, top risks, recommendation]
## Problem Assessment
### Problem Significance
[Frequency/Intensity/WTP scoring table]
### Validation Level
[Confirmed/Observed/Hypothesis with evidence]
### Root Cause Analysis (5 Whys)
[Chain from symptom to root cause]
### Existing Alternatives
[Alternative comparison table]
## Customer Forces Canvas
[Force table + balance assessment]
## Solution-Problem Mapping
[Mapping table + Problem-Solution Map diagram]
### Coverage Analysis
[Coverage metrics]
### Gaps
[Unaddressed problems]
### Over-engineering
[Unjustified features]
## DVF Assessment
[Scoring tables per lens + DVF Venn diagram]
### Weakest Lens Analysis
[Which dimension needs most attention]
## Riskiest Assumptions
[Assumption Priority Matrix diagram]
### Assumption Register
[Full assumption table ranked by risk]
### Top 5 Validation Experiments
[Experiment designs with success/fail criteria]
## Evidence Assessment
[Evidence table + overall strength score (if evidence provided)]
## Fit Scorecard
[Fit Scorecard Chart diagram]
### Composite Score Breakdown
[Weighted scoring table]
### PSF Rating
[Rating with justification]
## Pivot/Persevere Recommendation
[Decision with specific justification referencing scorecard]
## Recommendations
[Prioritized next actions traced to specific findings]
## Sources
[Numbered list of web sources]
## Assumptions & Limitations
[Explicit list with confidence levels]
Present for user approval. Save only after explicit confirmation.
Per the autonomous-research mixin, plus:
| Situation | Behavior |
|---|---|
| No problem/solution described | Enter interview mode — ask what problem and solution to assess |
| Context too vague | Enter interview mode — ask targeted questions |
| No customer data available | Use research-based inference with [Assumption] labels |
| VPC input malformed | Ask user to verify, attempt partial import |
| Problem appears trivial | Report finding with evidence, assess anyway, note in recommendations |
| Solution is very early stage | Adjust expectations, focus on assumption testing over evidence assessment |
| Cannot find market evidence | Note gap, produce analysis with lower confidence, recommend primary research |
| mmdc / web search failures | See diagram-rendering and autonomous-research mixins |
| Out-of-scope request | "This skill assesses problem-solution fit. [Request] is outside scope." |
Before presenting output, verify:
[] Problem significance scored on 3 dimensions (frequency, intensity, WTP)
[] Validation level assessed (confirmed/observed/hypothesis)
[] Root cause analysis completed (5 Whys)
[] Existing alternatives mapped with strengths/weaknesses
[] Customer forces canvas complete (triggers, outcomes, alternatives, inertia, friction)
[] Solution-problem mapping with coverage score calculated
[] Gaps (unaddressed problems) identified
[] Over-engineering (unjustified features) identified
[] DVF scored (0-100 per lens) with geometric mean
[] Weakest DVF lens identified with rationale
[] Assumptions listed, categorized, and risk-scored
[] Top 5 assumptions have validation experiment designs
[] Experiment designs have specific success criteria and fail conditions
[] Evidence scored per Strategyzer ladder (if provided)
[] Fit scorecard calculated with weighted composite (0-100)
[] PSF rating assigned (Strong/Moderate/Weak/Not achieved)
[] Pivot/persevere recommendation justified with scorecard references
[] All 4 Mermaid diagrams render valid syntax (per diagram-rendering mixin)
[] Sources listed for market claims (per autonomous-research mixin)
[] Assumptions labeled with confidence (per autonomous-research mixin)
Provides a checklist for code reviews covering functionality, security, performance, maintainability, tests, and quality. Use for pull requests, audits, team standards, and developer training.
npx claudepluginhub ssiertsema/claude-code-plugins --plugin problem-solution-fit